Mormon feminists tout ‘Wear Pants to Church Day'; fury ensues

Mormon feminists tout ‘Wear Pants to Church Day'; fury ensues

Mormon feminists have hit on fashion to promote demands for a larger say in church affairs: This Sunday is “Wear Pants to Church Day,” intended as a show of solidarity for women’s religious rights. Their sartorial flair has triggered some support – along with some bitter anger.

The event, which was being promoted on a special Facebook page, had drawn more than 1,200 supporters, a relative handful compared with the 6 million practicing Mormons nationwide. But by Thursday evening, the original page had been taken down and a new one posted, with this note:

“The event page got taken down due to the death threats. this is a page to further the cause but without a face attached. This page is for women who are choosing to wear pants this next Sunday.”

A screen shot of the original page included this comment:

“every single person who is a minority activist should be shot .. in the face … point blank … GET OVER YOURSELVES ….”

Passions were flowing about far more than pants.

“I’ll tell ya, the damn liberal women’s movement has all but destroyed God’s amazingly beautiful art of ‘femininity,’” wrote one male visitor to the original page. “I’d love to ‘weigh in,’ but a bunch of liberal HE-girls are not going to like my opinion of their angry masculine ways.”

I have to marvel at the power of the lunacy that keeps women in such an obviously anti-woman community. But it’s probably good that the even more extreme extremists are reacting so viciously. Maybe a few fence-sitters will begin to see the light. It is equally strange to me that women want to play any role at all in ANY of the churches, since even a cursory reading of the bible reveals the subjugation of women to a hypermasculine society and god. What a powerful lie it is, that convinces women that subservience is good for them.

like many simple brits, i also found this unusual. suggesting that mormon women don’t normally wear pants to church made me wonder if i had the mormons completely wrong all along and they were actually very groovy and liberated.

I realise now that like many religious feminists before them they are simply demanding to have their social status raised to something approaching second class.

Did anyone read the comment from the man claiming his wife will be wearing a dress to a “tithe settlement?” He goes on to imply that Mormon tithe money will be used for a shopping mall in SLC. Anyone here from a foundation that legally investigates these types of claims? I question whether the comment is fully truthful because the implications of LDS using millions/billions in tithe money for commercial gain is damaging. They should lose their nonprofit tax status if true.

Edit:According to wikipedia City Creek Center exists. I was surprised that a church could own a for profit company. Still not sure about the money laundering claims, but I smell something rotten. …and people are worrying about women wearing pants; there is a much bigger fish to fry and it’s stinking up the kitchen.

How about this: all Mormon woman will band together to not only demand they’ll be wearing the pants but also the men have to start wearing skirts or the women will LEAVE and Mormon men will no longer be able to reproduce themselves. Problem… solved.

I forgot which feminist said it back in the 70’s, but she was annoyed with semi-liberated women who also “want a piece of the pie instead of realising that the whole pie is rotten”. I guess that small steps are better than no steps, though, especially if leaving is not an immediate option.

If women are allowed to wear pants, where will it end? Soon, horses and sheep will be wearing pants! This is a disgrace to the sanctity of the pants! The entire institution of pants-wearing will come into disrepute! We must not give in! Pants are for men only!!!

Most people were born into their faith; they didn’t join of their own volition. Abandoning a church isn’t like letting a gym membership lapse. It can mean being ostracized from friends and family, particularly if the church in question is the insular type which insists its members don’t form social relationships with those from outside the fold.

“The LDS dress code is not doctrinal,” said one commenter, a woman. “Never was. All it amounts to is the opinions of elderly men.”

Hmmm, where have we heard this before? Ah yes, the famous bit in the Qur’an which, and in great detail, says precisely nothing about women having to hide any trace of their gender under a thick sack.

Part of me is glad that the followers of Christianity, Islam and Judaism dislike and mistrust each other so much and don’t realise that they’re pretty much identical. We need to stop informing Christians that Jesus was a Jew or that He figures prominently in Islam. We need fewer Obamas and more dumb people like George W in the White House who will say that America is ‘on a crusade’ against terrorism. We need to stage robberies at blood banks in Christian neighborhoods around Passover time and leave a few yarmulkes and Mel Brooks DVDs at the scene.*

Because if it ever dawns on these guys that all their efforts are in pursuit of the same goal, namely the complete subjugation of the half of the population which doesn’t possess that pesky Y chromosome, and whom they find so terrifying and threatening, then I think my gender has had it.

I’m off to read some Margaret Atwood.

*It also wouldn’t hurt if the rumor were spread that American Evangelicals’ support of Israel is because of the belief that an Israeli state must exist in that part of the world if the Christian Rapture is to occur. (Although come to think of it, nobody would be stupid enough to take that seriously)

Just walk out the damn church already, and you’ll be able to wear whatever you want! ….Anyone can write a book from a perspective of an imaginary God. You can try it yourself. I promise you, it will read as if god was literally using your body to write it.

You know how many clay plates would require in order to fit the Book of Mormon on them? They would cover the entire area of New York State!

May be wearing pants will make you a little smarter and more discriminate not of people’s race and ethnicity, but of what people, who’s race you’re enamored with, shove on you!

You’re too late! Never mind present day American support of Israel. Don’t forget, it was the British who drew the borders of the “Promised Land” on the map in the first place, and they did so at least in part for exactly the reason you cite. There was still an influence of 19th Century evangelism in Britain.

Ah yes, the famous bit in the Qur’an which, and in great detail, says precisely nothing about women having to hide any trace of their gender under a thick sack.

No mention of thick sacks, as far as I’m aware, but the literal word of god on the matter of women’s clothing, as found in the Qu’ran, goes like this:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

and:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

and, of course, from the Hadith, to pick just one example, we have:

Narrated Aisha (the Prophet’s wife): Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: ‘O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.

Sadly, the idea that the various misogynistic modes of dress Muslim women are so often ‘encouraged’ to adopt have nothing to do with ‘true Islam’, turns out to be, at best, little more than wishful thinking.

Oh, I stand corrected. I’ve heard many people say over the years that there’s nothing in the Qur’an which says that women must cover themselves as they’re so often obliged to do in Islamic countries; only a vague exhortation that they should dress ‘modestly’. Shame on me for believing them. Thanks for the theology lesson.

– bgoodwine – I grew up Mormon. There is an ugly side to the smiling church members that the church’s PR firm likes to portray.

This is a characteristic of the idealised preached image of most or all religions. The fanciful beliefs in “good followers” have much more to do with the chanting and preaching of repetitive claims, than any objective relationship to what those sheeples or their leaders actually do! The paedophile scandals are a prime example of this! There is also a Robin-Hood, “feel-good” PR image in the likes of Madoff’s well publicised donations to Jewish charities!